Not surprisingly there is more than one way of dissociating the water molecule. However, dissociation of the water molecule does not necessarily lead to the evolution of hydrogen and oxygen gases.

Only when the water molecule fractures cleanly into atomic hydrogen and atomic oxygen will gases be immediately evolved. However, under most circumstances the water molecule cleaves into ions of H+ and OH-. When the water molecule dissociates into two ionic species, for gases to be produced, these ionic species need a charge exchange medium whereby they can drop off and collect charges in order to become atoms.

I’ve seen on numerous occasions that some self-appointed, so-called experts in the field now demean Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis as out-dated and irrelevant. How ridiculous such accusations are. All this does is emphasise their total lack of understanding of Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis, and indeed their general level of ignorance on the subject.

Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis are not difficult to understand, and anyone applying themselves to it will quickly understand why these laws are as valid now as they were when Faraday first described them. People who casually dismiss these laws are clearly uneducated and/or ignorant of the facts, and as such are not people who should be trusted or taken seriously.

The term over-Faraday is often employed to situations whereby it would seem that more gases are being produced for a given power than allowed for by Faraday’s laws. Because of the term over-Faraday, many people also seem to think that this itself invalidates Faraday’s laws, making them obsolete. It of course does not.

Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis take into account every ion/electron reaction at the electrodes, which is why the electroplating industry can accurately determine exactly how much current will have to pass through an electrolytic solution for any given amount of deposited product. However it must be borne in mind that side reactions can occur in a standard electrolyser, and as these reactions also abide by Faraday’s Laws, they will to a lesser or greater degree have an impact on the volume of gas evolving. That is, side reactions such as iron in the electrodes reacting with oxygen to form an oxide will accordingly reduce the volume of oxygen evolving as gas.

Faraday was using dc current, plain and simple, and easy from a measurement point of view. Start pulsing dc, and measurement gets a little more difficult because not only does this ask a lot more of the measuring equipment and/or involve some additional calculation, but other elements of dissociation can come into play.

With a pure dc current drawn through an electrolytic solution, then the product or products (in the case of water: hydrogen and oxygen) is proportional to that current. The more current, the more product/s. Calculations are relatively easy and straight forward.

I’ve also seen it written that any voltage above the required voltage necessary to induce electrolysis does nothing but create heat. This of course is nonsense. Over voltage may reduce overall efficiency of the electrolyser due to the V x I = W of ohms law, but by the very same law also states V/R = I. In other words increasing the voltage will of course increase the current and so result in more product/s.

The theoretical minimum voltage to initiate Faraday electrolysis of water is 1.23 volts, but even this figure is temperature specific (around 18 deg. C). Raise or lower the temperature of the electrolytic solution and this optimum voltage figure changes accordingly. In reality there is also an over voltage potential at the electrodes that has to be overcome as well as the resistance of the electrolytic solution itself, and so typically 2 – 2.5 volts minimum is required. As inert electrodes go, platinum electrodes are the most efficient, requiring minimum over-voltage potential, but not only are they very expensive, they are also hard to come by. This is why stainless steel is generally the electrode metal of choice for electrolyser builders - be they businesses or just water fuel enthusiasts experimenting in a shed.

Faraday’s Laws are beautifully simple and extremely elegant, but they do not apply to all situations, which is where problems and confusion often stem from. Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis are in evidence when ionic species are the current carriers within a solution and when there are charge exchange mediums present (ie, electrodes in contact with the electrolytic solution). In cases where water is caused to dissociate and evolve as hydrogen and oxygen through other means, such as plasma arcs, ultrasonic cavitation and electromagnetic radiation, when there are no charge exchange mediums present, then Faraday’s Laws cannot reliably be applied.

However, so tried and trusted are Faraday’s Laws, that they are always used as a baseline from which to judge other forms of dissociation of the water molecule.

Complications arise when people try to ascertain how much power it will take to produce a given volume of gas, because voltage then comes into play, but of course does not itself feature in Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis.

Under ideal conditions of voltage and temperature and assuming 100% efficiency, implementing Faraday’s Law will require 3.658kW/hr to dissociate 1 litre of water into its component gases.

At STP, this will produce 1,358 litres of hydrogen and 679 litres of oxygen.

Emphasis here on STP, which hints at yet another complication. Hot gas expands and so has greater volume at equivalent pressure than when cold. So this is yet another factor that can provide very misleading results if not taken into consideration. As a reliable guideline, the difference in volume of a gas (any gas) at 0 deg, C and 100 deg. C is 36%. That is 1 litre of gas at 0 deg. C, will become 1.36 litres of gas at 100 deg. C, at equal pressures.

And of course something I never even see considered when people are measuring gas output is the water vapour content. People forget that water vapour is a gas that will be present along with the hydroxyl mix.

Yet further complications arise when the current is made to pulse and/or more than one method of dissociation is occurring within an electrolytic cell – the latter of which may be occurring completely unbeknown to the electrolyser builder/operator.

It should now be very clear to all that there are many factors to be taken into consideration when trying to determine electrolyser efficiencies, and indeed many possible areas for mistakes, miscalculations and misreading or misinterpretation of results.

Sadly, most amateur Water Fuel enthusiasts completely neglect to consider any of the above-mentioned factors which in itself makes way for wildly optimistic results and often even wilder claims.

I did genuinely try to converse with this guy in order to discuss and explain the science behind his wireless electrolysis, but he didn’t take too kindly to my interpretation of the science and immediately spat his dummy out and had a tantrum. But there you go, I do tend to have that effect on people. I guess people simply don’t like having their fantasies dispelled!

You will note from the video in the first link that Stiffler is almost beside himself in thinking that he has made an enormous breakthrough that will change the world. Unfortunately he has not considered the electrochemistry, and was not open to explanations that did not involve some mysterious form of spatial energy.

The first thing Stiffler states is that ONLY hydrogen is being produced, NO oxygen!

Of course this is absurd, you can’t dissociate the water molecule and get only hydrogen without oxygen.

What Stiffler was doing is dropping a small signal diode in a test tube of water and then wirelessly exciting the water with an EM radiation. Now contrary to what Stiffler states or thinks, there is really no mystery here. Quite simply the diode is acting as a charge exchange medium, and working in a similar way to the old Cat’s Whisker radio sets. A small voltage develops across the diode, which of course will only pass current one way and so rectifies the signal, and H3O+ and OH- ions in the water are so able to drop and collect charges.

Clearly hydrogen is being evolved at the anode leg, while the tin on the cathode leg reacts with the hydroxyl ion to form and oxide, which then forms a precipitate which slowly drops to the bottom of the test tube. So oxygen is being produced as well as hydrogen, but it is reacting with the tin coating on the diode legs. If inert electrodes are attached to the diode (or AV plug) legs then hydrogen and oxygen are evolved as gas just as in normal electrolysis.

I did some experimenting of my own and as expected, found that that the diode body itself does not need to be submerged. In fact it works fine when just the legs are in the water. Furthermore, I was able to achieve satisfactory results with my Car Ignition Coil cct, at various frequencies from 5kHz – 150kHz.

Initially I thought that increasing the size of the electrodes would possibly allow for more charge exchanging, more current flow, and hence more gas production, but I found this not to be the case. In fact it made no difference whatsoever. Adding sodium sulphate as an electrolyte, did improve things marginally, but nothing like when you dope an electrolyser and see the gas suddenly pour off.

Why?

I think because current is not flowing through the water (or electrolyte) itself. What I think is happening is that the diode is rectifying the applied EM signal and in doing so is producing a voltage across itself, just like a crystal radio. Any H3O+ or OH- ions in the vicinity of the diode legs will act exactly the same as those near the plates of an electrolyser and give up or take on charges. But the key thing is that this set up is relying on the tiny proportion of self-ionisation occurring in the water, and the tiny current is just flowing through the diode/s.

Why is hydrogen being evolved at the anodes of the diodes? This is because of the way current flows through a diode… think about it!

In conclusion, though this at first may seem like a very intriguing and unusual phenomenon, the reality is that the science is very easily explained and in fact holds no mystery.

I bring this up, because this is a thread on Energetic Forum that unfortunately resulted in my being banned when questions I asked the thread originator were considered disruptive and/or inappropriate and hence the forum moderator and self-important asshole, Mystic Murakami decided to curtail my membership. Funny how simply asking questions can be construed as disruptive, eh!

Perhaps it’s just that I know enough and have been around long enough to see through the bullshit and get an almost immediate and instinctive impression of people through what they state – or don’t state – but whatever, my instincts have never failed me yet. I asked very legitimate questions that often go to the heart of the matter, questions which were either avoided or totally ignored. Same old story really, this guy claims he has done this and that, claims he knows how to do it, but then fails to answer relevant questions or provide anything by which to substantiate his claims. It’s yet another wild goose chase which the uneducated and gullible are only too happy to be part of. And let’s face it, the education of someone that writes, ‘None Electrolytic’ instead of the correct, ‘Non-Electrolytic’ in the thread title must be immediately suspect. I’m afraid just another attention seeker, fooling foolish people into thinking he knows more than he does – or ever will.

There has as yet - at least to the best of my knowledge - been no official explanation of the electrochemistry taking part in the reaction that dissociates water into hydrogen and oxygen with no charge exchange medium, ie, no electrodes.

Indeed, we do not know for sure that both hydrogen and oxygen are being evolved.

Further investigation has shown that any electrolyte works, not just the NaCl that Kanzius used when he initially observed this phenomenon. In fact, just as in standard electrolysis, the better the electrolyte is, the better the reaction.

Kanzius used 13.56 MHz, which is simply one of the frequencies allocated for medical research and/or medical equipment and so likely not to be that critical. Hence other frequencies are likely to be more or less efficient.

Of all the methods of dissociating the water molecule, this is by far the most intriguing to date, but unfortunately also the least openly researched with very little available information, and probably the least understood.

Perhaps it’s just that I know enough and have been around long enough to see through the bullshit and get an almost immediate and instinctive impression of people through what they state – or don’t state – but whatever, my instincts have never failed me yet. I asked very legitimate questions that often go to the heart of the matter, questions which were either avoided or totally ignored. Same old story really, this guy claims he has done this and that, claims he knows how to do it, but then fails to answer relevant questions or provide anything by which to substantiate his claims. It’s yet another wild goose chase which the uneducated and gullible are only too happy to be part of. And let’s face it, the education of someone that writes, ‘None Electrolytic’ instead of the correct, ‘Non-Electrolytic’ in the thread title must be immediately suspect. I’m afraid just another attention seeker, fooling foolish people into thinking he knows more than he does – or ever will.

I have always tended to say it as I see it. I'm well aware that I come on strong in my opinions of people and their posts at times, but if they don't want my criticism then they'd be better off not posting bullshit and gibberish - simple really. In any case my hard-hitting attitude toward quacks and charlatans is more than matched by the endless steam of naive and gullible lame-brains out there, that in their blissful ignorance are only too happy to treat them like lord and saviours! The best I can hope is that I'm somewhat redressing the balance of things.

Hope you can find your way across to here Mookie. And hope you don't mind but I've copied a page from EF just so we have a starting point.

Can I just say from the start that I personally have no interest whatsoever in the efficiency of the process at this stage, ie, overunity or not. No, my main focus is the science of the process, which in itself is absolutely intriguing.

Quote

SigYes I have lit the output gas without a lid on the cell and completely blew apart the (plastic) container.I will never do that again. The "milky looking water "as you describe it, is made up of a huge amountof oxygen/hydrogen bubbles that are miniscule in size as compared to the bubbles produced witha cell running in normal conditions...the cell appears to be supersaturated with escaping bubbles, and as fast as they leave the cell...they cant leave fast enough.

LamereI appreciate your observations, but the plate resonance is not acoustic and the ions do not move back and forth.The movement occurs along the magnetic field lines. You can visibly see that, but not in the vid clip..because of the poor quality resolution of the vid.

SebThe electrodes are martensitic ss ..and must be so for obvious reasons.The accelerator itself is a monstrously powerful industrial AC/DC E-core electromagnet. The one in the vid has a pull strength of just under a half ton (963 lbs). Its operates at 7.5 amps at 120 volts AC. The variac transformer regulates 0-140 volts AC and is rated for 7.5 amps output and is required for 3 reasons. Firstly, to regulate the rate of acceleration, secondly to keep my glass test cells from smashing. I went thru a dozen glass jars because they simply cant handle an instant start-up at 120 volts. The magnetic force is too great. A regular properly-built (non glass) cell works just fine at instant full power. And thirdly, to watch the dynamics that visibly occur at different voltages. The amp draw of the cell is not at all affected at any time.. with or without the electromagnet. Yes 60hz is correct...but that has no bearing on the resonance of the plates. Resonance is caused by, and is dependant on, the strength of the electromagnet, which is driven by the current as more voltage is applied to it. That is why this is so simple....But for anyone unfamiliar with a voltage regulator, you can get away without one with a well-built cell.

.................................................. ..

Since this vid, I am using a much differently configured cell and electromagnet which is a bit more complicated,but my very first one consisted of 2 ss screws in a Crazy Glue container with a small toriod AC electromagnet.Anyone can make one of those.

But let me go on record ...I am not claiming anything ..I'm sharing it. If no one finds it interesting ..I will quietly disappear..so fire away.

Mookie

I’d forgotten about your previous posts on EF regarding electromagnetic electrolysis, and indeed did not realise that this was the basis for what we are seeing in your videos until you replied with the above posts. I had assumed we were witnessing a purely mechanical action from your accelerator.

Okay, if we can just clear up a few things first. That unit that sits next to the electrolyser is an industrial electromagnet, right? Now, is it actually in contact with the glass jar of the electrolyser? I ask this because, as I said, I was assuming the action I was observing to be the result of a mechanical action – physical vibrations.

From what you state above, I have a problem in this just being a magnetic effect rather than a mechanical one – especially if that electromagnet is in physical contact with the glass jar. Firstly, you would not expect the glass jars to break under a purely magnetic action, as obviously the magnetic field will pass straight through the glass with no effect on it’s structure. Mechanical action though is a different matter. Secondly, I would not expect to see the water vibrating from the magnetic field as, until ions are set in motion via an applied voltage, the magnetic effect would not initiate much in the way of movement.

The water molecule is dipolar and will align to an electric field, but it is not magnetic as such so will be influenced very little by a magnetic field. I assume too that your SS electrodes are low ferrous and hence strongly non-magnetic.

However, once a current is flowing through the cell, then this current will indeed be influenced by an external applied magnetic field. Check out Fleming’s right hand rule:

Whether this phenomenon is a result of magnetic interactions of the ionic current or physical vibrations, or both, one thing is very clear, that is, were only looking at very low frequencies. Actually, technically they would be described as superlow frequencies (or SLF)!

Now there was some mention somewhere of Fast Freddy, http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=384.0converting his Pulse Width Modulator to apply unusually low frequencies, but he is yet to openly detail any specifics. But it is certainly a possible correlation. Also there is some obvious correlation between this and the Ohmasa electrolyser:

Though I’m very sceptical about some of the claims stated by both Ohmasa and the reporters, there is clearly similarities between the reactions of both yours and Ohmasa’s electrolysers. You will note however that Ohmasa is employing SLF mechanical vibrations, with no mention of magnetic influences.

The effect that is observed in your video is visually quite dramatic, and certainly no one can be under the illusion that the reaction is only minor. But what is happening at molecular level probably does not warrant idle speculation until further information is gathered and the process more fully understood.

I run many boring, repetitive, systematic tests before reaching conclusions on most things.After hundreds of hours, testing both with neos and with DC (pulsed and direct) electromagnets I eliminated all possibilities (for myself) that they can create the resonating effect.An alternating N/S electromagnet is required. Perhaps you can look up how they work for yourselfin that, although I have a good understanding, I am not the best person to explain it to you.

Keep in mind that it is the rigid plates themselves that you want to resonate.The undulating waves that you see in the vid is caused by the electrode plates resonating back and forth. It is the resonating plates that cause the acceleration and the "avalanche effect" I doubt that one can get only the plates themselves to resonate with a resonating tank.

Let me try to explain it differently ..hope this makes it less puzzling:

The more voltage applied to the electromagnet, the more current the electromagnet is able to draw,meaning that the magnet becomes stronger, causing the plates to vibrate faster (at higher frequency)..that's exactly what you see in the vid.

You would be best to go to the internet for a good description of how to wind an E-core electromagnetas I do not build my own...or maybe you could post a new thread for someone else to help you with that. There appear to be many people winding their own elsewhere in the forum.

Mookie

Trying to get better and clear insight into this phenomenon is quite difficult when I can't converse directly with you Mookie, but I hope to be starting a replication soon from the info I've gleaned. What I think will be important is determining whether this reaction is due to a magnetic effect or purely a mechanical action – and I strongly suspect the latter!

What I can say, is that though your plates are vibrating, I’ve seen nothing to suggest resonance as such is occurring. You have to understand that the term resonance is used to describe a system that oscillates at a much greater amplitude than usual at a specific – or specific - frequencies. You are operating at a set 50 - 60Hz, there is no frequency tuning at all, you are simply increasing the voltage to the electromagnet. Increasing the voltage will NOT alter the frequency in which the plates are vibrating, it simply adds more energy and so makes the amplitude of the oscillations greater.

Most stainless steels are non-magnetic or only very slightly, this factor of course being determined by its make up. And likewise, as I stated previously, water is non-magnetic, hence the magnetism provided by your electromagnet should do nothing on its own from a purely magnetic angle. That is why I was curious to know whether or not the electrolyser is actually in physical contact with the electromagnet.

Once a current is flowing through the electrolyser, your cell plates will move in accordance with Flemings right hand rule and hence oscillate at 50 - 60Hz. It seems to me that it is these physical vibrations (albeit produced via the interaction of magnetic fields) that is creating the effect.

You are using the interaction of the cell’s dc current magnetic field and the ac electromagnet field to cause the plates to vibrate, but if the goal is simply vibration of the plates, then I suggest that are multiple (and maybe far more efficient) ways of doing this. One thing for sure, even using your method, it will be possible to design far more efficient systems that considers the most favourable interaction of magnetic fields via the application of Fleming’s right hand rule.

You will no doubt get all manner of theories and wild conjecture thrown up, people talking about all manner of exotic gas or gases, but at the end of the day science will be able to easily explain it. As you’ve stated that the current draw from the electrolyser PSU does not go up, then this tends to suggest that there is no increase in ionisation of the water molecule.

Now, just what exactly these vibrations are doing is not entirely clear, though from what I’ve gleaned, I’m prepared to go out on a limb here. Though I said it may be unwise to speculate on exactly what is occurring, given what I now know, I feel fairly confident that what we are witnessing is a cavitation effect - the very same cavitation that occurs on marine vessel propellers.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest any that kind of electron avalanche is happening here, and I strongly feel that pursuing that avenue would be quite fruitless... at least I won't be taking that route. Cavitation though, is a different matter altogether. Cavitation is created when very low pressure areas are created within an fluid. Basically we would have the water vaporising within the liquid environment, and when the resulting microscopic vapour bubbles collapse, they can generate phenomenal pressures and temperatures - indeed extreme enough pressures and temperatures to fracture the water molecules. When this happens so much energy is released that the water molecule does more than simply dissociate into ions, the O-H bonds break completely and cleanly and we can get hydrogen and oxygen forming as both monatomic and diatomic species and indeed also the creation of species such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2).

This is really eye-opening stuff Mookie. If I now look back at various experiments and claims of super-efficient electrolysers of the past, I can now see how cavitation may well have played a part – it was simply not realised at the time.

It will be particularly interesting to know if there are there even more effective frequencies to use.

Hi .99, you'll see that Chet has now provided the link to the thread on EF forum in the previous post.

It is a shame that Mookie himself has not yet found his way across to here, perhaps Chet will provide another link to here from the EF thread. That said, if the EF thread is anything to go by, it won't take long before useful conversation is swamped by a myriad of pointless posts and mindless questions.

To my mind, what Mookie has done is terrific in that it clearly shows what mechanical action on water can do. I know Mookie talks of a electron avalanche effect in his video, but I'll go on record for saying that I believe this is an incorrect assumption - this is clearly not plasma electrolysis whereby electrons themselves can flow through liquid. And exactly where would these electrons be coming from as it is stated that the current through the PSU does not increase? No, by the virtue of applying just a little chemistry, I'll put money on electron avalanche theory being a non-starter here.

I'll be focussing all of my attention on cavitation. The beauty of cavitation is that no charge exchange mediums are necessary to produce gases because here, unlike standard electrolysis, ionisation is not the key as gases are a direct result of the intense microscopic reactions to temperature and pressure.

I'm confident that Fleming's right hand rule is the key to what Mookie is achieving in his set up, but there must surely be far better ways of incorporating this into a cell in order to make for a far more power efficient design than using a power hungry electromagnet. Nevertheless, the important thing here is that Mookie has demonstrated a fully working model and as such power consumption at this stage is of no great concern.

With my own ideas of what is occurring, I'll now go about implementing something similar in a cell of my own, looking firstly to duplicate the effect, before then looking at ways to improve efficiency and/or enhance the effect.

I'll be starting a new thread on my workbench, specifically for this purpose. Hope you join up Mookie.

NB. For anyone just looking in, I should add that you will need to be a registered forum member to access my workbench threads, as visitors do not have access to this particular facility.

FarrahI already posted one direct link to this thread!Energetic has a "no Spam Bot" built in, once you post a link No more linking allowed!Unless I link to an EF thread [yours] which I have done several times![that thread has a link to here]If Mookie wants to come here ,He knows where you are! [well they all do now]

Farrah,I would imagine you have already thought of this, but would an ultrasonic transducer work to produce the cavitation in the water (think ultra sonic humidifier). The frequency may be too high but it can be varied electronically and would be much more efficient. Seems to me I have allready read about people using ultrasonics in electrolysis? Just an idea.

---------------------------

"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material" Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke

Yes I have considered this. But as far as I'm aware, ultrasonic transducers mist water, that is they atomise water rather than creating the cavitation effect necessary to fracture the water molecule completely in order to evolve the component gases. But I do intend to play with frequencies once I initially duplicate the effect. To get cavitation occurring it may involve setting up a standing wave that provides constant areas of compression and rarefaction, but there are still a lot of questions to be answered and a great deal of experimenting to be done. If you look carefully at Mookies Vid when he is powering the electromagnet, but not the electrolyser, it does look like standing waves are being generated in the water.

Farrah,I would imagine you have already thought of this, but would an ultrasonic transducer work to produce the cavitation in the water (think ultra sonic humidifier). The frequency may be too high but it can be varied electronically and would be much more efficient. Seems to me I have allready read about people using ultrasonics in electrolysis? Just an idea.

Room, having looked into this further, I see that ultrasonic cavitation is actually quite well documented and is indeed commonly used as an intensive cleaning process. I see frequencies of 20Khz and upwards quoted, but nothing to suggest any cavitation cleaning processes that use SLF or acoustic frequencies. However, surely any frequency is capable of mechanically oscillating a medium and so would produce compression and rarefaction in gas or liquid, thereby developing some cavitation. It may simply come down to efficiency as you suggest.

The limitations of standard Faraday Electrolysis should be quite obvious to anyone and everyone that has taken the trouble to read and understand Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis. After all, they couldn’t be much simpler. The amount of gases evolved under standard Faraday Electrolysis, is - and will always be - governed by the current through the cell/electrolyser. Even if we keep the voltage to the realistic optimum of around 2 volts per cell to initiate and maintain electrolysis, then we are still always limited by the current that can be drawn through the cell at this voltage. With the power dissipated equal to, P = V x I, or P = 2V x I, even at just two volts the high current required produces lots of wasted energy in the form of heat. Under these conditions, the current needed to produce enough gas to run an ICE becomes enormous, and indeed impossible to provide continuously via an on-demand vehicle system.

To electrolyse 1 litre of water (under ideal conditions of around 1.3 volts and 100% efficiency) requires 3.658kW of power per hour. Which, at 1.3 volts, equates to 2814 amps! This would provide 2038 litres of oxyhydrogen.

This emphasises the very real limitations of so-called brute force, Faraday Electrolysis.

So, is there another way?

Well, it has been proven that for the same amount of power, Plasma Discharge Electrolysis produces more combustible gases than Faraday Electrolysis. I say, ‘combustible gases’, because the high temperatures created by plasma discharges do not just involve the creation of radical species H+ and OH-, but also OH2 and O, reacting to form not only hydrogen and oxygen, but also highly combustible hydrogen peroxide H2O2.

If you are aware of the work done by Dave Lawton, who was himself active on forums a few years back, you will know that he claimed to be achieving 3 – 4 times more gas evolution from his Meyer-like electrolyser than Faraday’s Electrolysis Laws state was possible. Of course Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis were not at fault and still completely valid, so there had to be something else happening too. Back then there was much theorising, much controversy, and of course much wild speculation. But now, a few years on, things look a little different and the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit nicely to show us glimpses of the big picture.

One thing that was a feature of Dave Lawton’s electrolyser design was that the tubular electrodes were ‘conditioned’. Conditioning is a term that is banded about quite a lot. For a long time it was considered a mysterious process, creating much speculation and debate, and indeed seen by some as a bit of a dark art. The problem was, that no one really knew what it was all about - how or why it apparently increased efficiency of the electrolyser - or indeed if it served any real purpose at all.

Further complications arise from the fact there seems to be two types of conditioning of the electrodes, or rather two interpretations. The first is that running an electrolyser at a low current for a few hours, allows iron in the surface of the electrodes to ‘leach’ out. That is, any microscopic areas of iron on the surface of the stainless steel electrodes, under working conditions will react with the oxygen being created to form rust. Now obviously if we are losing oxygen to the iron to form an oxide, then we evolve less oxygen as a gas, so certainly this will be seen as a reduction in gas output. When this iron reacts to form rust it usually leaves the surface of the SS electrodes to become a precipitate in the solution, and the chromium in the SS quickly acts to form a protective oxide coating. Once all the microscopic iron has been reacted, the chromium oxide coating on the SS surface does its job and prevents further reaction. So this form of condition makes sense and indeed is good practice.

However, Dave Lawton’s electrode conditioning goes a step further. By using hard water (that is water high in minerals) or indeed doping water with minerals, he built up a visible mineral coating, which consisted mainly of calcium carbonate, or scale. Water that is filtered through limestone is very mineral rich and ideal for producing this coating. But what does it do?

Well at the time, as I mentioned above, it was a mystery. But not so now.

Dave Lawton claimed that his cells appeared to glow slightly in the dark, producing some kind of luminescence. At the time, though interesting, not too much was made of this and little investigation or indeed real consideration was given to this phenomenon.

The interesting thing about this mineral coating was that, although it did not conduct electricity, having a non-measurable resistance on a digital multimeter and so effectively a great insulator, it was actually very porous.

What I know now, that no one realised at the time was that the luminescence was due to microscopic PLASMA DISCHARGES within the microscopic cavities of this porous mineral coating. And any apparent over-Faraday results were likely due to this phenomenon.

Now, CAVITATION produces similar results to plasma discharges in water due to the high temperatures and pressures created on a microscopic level but, unlike plasma discharges which are created by high currents, cavitation is induced mechanically by physical vibration.

So here’s the thing. Why not introduce all these elements into an electrolyser in order to – if possible – increase overall efficiency.

So here’s my idea: The Hybrid Electrolyser

An electrolyser that uses elements of Faraday Electrolysis, Plasma Discharge Electrolysis and Cavitation.

I’m currently designing and fabricating, but the current freezing cold spell is hampering me somewhat. However, I’ve attached a couple of my initial designs in order that you can see where I’m going with this.

I’m not yet at the testing stage though I have sourced most of the materials and have commenced fabrication. I fear the testing stage will have to wait a while as an unheated greenhouse in below freezing temperatures is really no fun to work in.

Anyway, I’ve attached a depiction of my latest cell design, which is intended to dissociate water into its component elements by multiple means. That is, my H-Cell is intended to incorporate aspects of standard Faraday Electrolysis, Plasma Discharge Electrolysis and indeed Cavitation.

I have done away with the electromagnet of the first design and instead have employed a strong neodymium magnet and a coil. The neo is glued into place in the hollow centre SS tube (anode), while the coil is wrapped around the outer SS tube (cathode). I’m gambling on the interacting magnetic fields of the neo and the coil (when fed high current pulses) will create the required mechanical movement between the two electrodes to induce cavitation.

I will also be conditioning the tubes over a period of time beforehand, using a steady DC in order to leach out as much iron near the surface of the SS tubes as possible. I will then dope the water with calcium carbonate to get the desired mineral build up required for the creation of Plasma Discharges once the cell is up and running on pulsed DC.

If, as I suspect, various electrolyser incarnations of the past have exhibited more than one form of water dissociation - perhaps more by luck than design - then I now need to look closer at cell construction.

It has occurred to me that if I want two tubes of a cell to oscillate, then how these tubes are fixed, both within the electrolyser as a whole and in respect to each other will be important. When using tube electrodes in the past, I have used the inert rubber bungs from laboratory test tubes, cutting pieces off to wedge between inner and outer electrodes. The sole purpose of which was to simply space the electrodes and hold them firmly in place to prevent them coming into contact with each other. However, this method would not seem to be conducive to creating a mechanical oscillation between the two electrodes, and may well have been restricting me to standard Faraday Electrolysis. So, now I’m carefully gluing the cells in place at the base, so that this is the only clamping point. This way the cell can oscillate far more easily, and it makes sense that the higher up the cells, the greater any mechanical movement will become – and hence longer cells may be more effective than shorter cells. I’m still considering employing a thin rubber ‘O’ ring near the top of the inner tube just to prevent the inner and outer tubes contacting should oscillations become too pronounced and weaken the glue at the bottom. But this is a very minor concern and a trivial point that may not even come into play.

Many people confuse resonance with simple oscillations. The fact that the two tubes may oscillate does not mean that they are at resonance, though resonance will be what I’m ultimately looking to achieve. As many of you know, when something resonates at its natural frequency, then it requires far less energy to maintain the oscillations than it does at any other frequency, and indeed at resonance the amplitude of the oscillations will greatly increase unless input energy is drastically reduced. Oscillating the cells in resonance to the point of destruction has occurred to me as being a possibility, so I’ll be monitoring things very carefully in order to avoid this unpleasant scenario… but I’m probably getting a little ahead of myself.

So ideally, pulsing the DC at an appropriate frequency will see the tubes oscillate to induce cavitation for minimal energy input. I’m also wondering would I want both the inner and outer tubes to oscillate in time with each other - would tuning both the inner and outer tubes be advantageous… or not? I’m rather inclined to think ‘not’. If they were both tuned to the same frequency, and if they moved in phase with each other and at the same amplitude, then the overall sum of their relative movement and indeed that of the electrolyte between the tubes would be zero. To my mind, the last thing I want is the tubes oscillating in phase and cancelling each other out.

Of course, all the time, standard Faraday Electrolysis will be evident, and again ‘hopefully’, there may also be some evidence of Plasma Discharges taking place if the insulating mineral deposit allows for the creation of high voltages within and around microcavities. I’m tempted to say, ‘three reactions for the price of one’, but no doubt there will be costs. It remains to be seen then just how effective and - if effective - just how efficient all this turns out to be… or even if it works at all!

Even if the electrodes are induced to oscillate, yet cavitation is not evident, it may still prove to be more efficient due to the evolving gas bubbles being ‘shook’ off the electrodes.

I’m trying to detail everything as clearly as I possibly can in order that anyone wanting to replicate – or indeed simply following my work - is armed with all the necessary details and information.

I've only just found out that we've lost Rustum Roy, the scientist that was an expert in the field of water and indeed the guy who was following up on John Kanzuis's discovery. He passed away in the summer:

The university of Birmingham, UK, is doing that study with ultrasonics as well. They have a couple of our systems and will be integrating the USonic into it....but the caco3 has a significant interest for us....we tested a group of cells, flow through, with a caco3 solution. The resultant gas was obviously not very effective in the F150 petrol version,...but after we flush the solution and replaced it with KOH, 28%, the volume of gas for the 2 cells went from 12 lpm to 18 lpm for the same amperage and voltage. At that point we didn,t put the "connection" together....I will perform a followup on precise Numbers ...with the conditioning using caco3 v/s not.

Sorry not able to get back to posting...very busy with this business end of this science..

Good to hear from you Bob, hope things are going well for you. It's been a good while since I've heard from you.

You're probably one of the few people with the resources to have comprehensive testing undertaken, while the rest of us can only theorise on what is occurring. With this in mind your input is always very welcome indeed.

They have a couple of our systems and will be integrating the USonic into it....but the caco3 has a significant interest for us....we tested a group of cells, flow through, with a caco3 solution. The resultant gas was obviously not very effective in the F150 petrol version,...but after we flush the solution and replaced it with KOH, 28%, the volume of gas for the 2 cells went from 12 lpm to 18 lpm for the same amperage and voltage. At that point we did,t put the "connection" together....I will perform a followup on precise Numbers ...with the conditioning using caco3 v/s not.

Just to add another two-penneth Bob.

I too only use the Calcium Carbonate to initially build up the mineral content on the electrodes and once I'm where I want to be with it, I also change the solution for water with an electrolyte. I don't think the Calcium Carbonate actually breaks up and ionises in the water (or if it does it's only a very low percentage) because I have never found the current through the cell to rise when I'm doping my solution with this compound. So, it's not an electrolytic compound and indeed it seems to me that the Calcium Carbonate is simply suspended as tiny particles within the solution. Obviously there is a reason why it is attracted to the cathodes, but I'm not exactly sure why, or indeed what reaction - if any - is occurring. I say, 'if any' because it does rather seem to simply be the mineral being attracted and depositing itself on the electrodes rather than reacting with them.

Look forward to getting some concrete results and hopefully answers to some of the more elusive questions in the New Year.

One note...I pulled up our testing notes on CACO3 and saw that the cell we had used for testing had already been used with KOH for aprox 3 months, prior to the addition of the CACO3....so in fairness and accuracy, I will retest with brand new cells and publish the results....It will unfortunately not take place until after Christmas, as I am traveling with my loving wife and children...OH and by the way just missed your lovely snow...we left the day before from London .

Now that I don't get banned or censored here, I look forward to continuing our dance....

I don't think the Calcium Carbonate actually breaks up and ionises in the water (or if it does it's only a very low percentage) because I have never found the current through the cell to rise when I'm doping my solution with this compound. So, it's not an electrolytic compound and indeed it seems to me that the Calcium Carbonate is simply suspended as tiny particles within the solution. Obviously there is a reason why it is attracted to the cathodes, but I'm not exactly sure why, or indeed what reaction - if any - is occurring. I say, 'if any' because it does rather seem to simply be the mineral being attracted and depositing itself on the electrodes rather than reacting with them....

If the "mineral" is being attracted to the Cathode (NegativeElectrode) it would seem to be somewhat akin to whathappens in an electroplating bath.

But, since Calcium isn't capable of "plating" it becomes amystery.

Oxides are formed at the Anode (Positive Electrode) whichtake on a "mineral" appearance when stainless steel isused.

Yes, we do look forward to the results you obtain. Oncethe surface deposits are formed many have reported avery dramatic increase in the efficiency of the cell.

One must wonder whether some sort of "transmutation"is taking place...

If the "mineral" is being attracted to the Cathode (NegativeElectrode) it would seem to be somewhat akin to whathappens in an electroplating bath.

But, since Calcium isn't capable of "plating" it becomes amystery.

Oxides are formed at the Anode (Positive Electrode) whichtake on a "mineral" appearance when stainless steel isused.

Yes, we do look forward to the results you obtain. Oncethe surface deposits are formed many have reported avery dramatic increase in the efficiency of the cell.

One must wonder whether some sort of "transmutation"is taking place...

It's effectively just limescale, and this builds up over time in any plumbing or heating system that uses 'hard' mineral rich water. We see this in our kettles and around the spouts of taps, in the toilet cisterns, etc. The minerals are more likely to come out of suspension and deposit themselves forming a crust when heated, but even unheated water deposits these minerals in time. Obviously electroplating involves chemical reactions that alter chemical compositions and form new elements and compounds, but I'm not sure that's what we are seeing with this mineral build up.

Why it builds up so readily on the cathode is the mystery to me as it does appear to be attracted and deposited, but with no obvious chemical reaction occurring, while the anode remains clean. In my experience there is no obvious mineral build-up on the anode.

One thing I have not yet tried is reversing the polaraties of the electrodes in order to produce a mineral build up on both. It may be that the minerals drop off what was formerly the cathode when it is swapped to be an anode, but I'm yet to experiment with this.